Make Your Picks

20th Hall of Fame

Tools    





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Blood Diamond (2006)

Very solid film. I had heard good things about it so I was optimistic!
DiCaprio delivers a typical great performance and he and Connely show a great chemistry. The rest of the acting is pretty decent.
Though it follows quite a cliche formula and the story line, even if interesting, is quite predictable, the ending is quite unexpected which lends it a very fresh feeling!

-



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



...
I'd be happy to host the 1st Director Series round, featuring Hitchcock. I even have an empty post on the HoF thread where the records of the Director Series winners could go.
I'd be happy to participate in that one. Will be looking for the announcement whenever it's time..

~Doc



I'd be happy to participate in that one. Will be looking for the announcement whenever it's time..

~Doc
Hitch is always a crowd favorite, probably more so than any other director I can think of. There's still a few of his sound films I haven't even seen yet.





A salesman/con man comes to a town and suckers the townspeople into purchasing needless uniforms and instruments in the 1962 film The Music Man. The movie is adapted from a Broadway play and you really feel the theatrical roots. The film is shot with an epic scoop in technicolor brilliance you can imagine seeing this in the theater and really enjoying it.


For me though the film is the lacking, perhaps it's the genre and time period but I enjoyed the humor more than the film. The film doesn't really have a strong narrative and you don't really grow to like or sympathize with the characters. And the film has issues with continuity the villagers we meet in the first scene are very different each time you see them. I also don't know what time period the story is supposed to take place in.


You've also got a very outdated message of a woman needing a man to be happy



I'd be happy to participate in that one. Will be looking for the announcement whenever it's time..

~Doc
Hitch is always a crowd favorite, probably more so than any other director I can think of. There's still a few of his sound films I haven't even seen yet.
I’d be up for that as well. I have a rather large collection of his films so it’d be convenient 🙂
Kubrick would be another one I’d enjoy



Elmer Gantry



Something held me back from liking this, instead I would say that it was just ok. I thought Burt Lancaster was good as the main title character, although I've preferred some of his other performances. He can sometimes be pretty hit or miss with me, and I agree that his smirk can sometimes be irritating as Miss Vicky has previously stated.

I really did like Jean Simmons and Shirley Jones in this film though. I thought the two of them did some really great work. I'll continue to try to see what else they got.

Perhaps it was the story that dragged it down a bit for me. It just wasn't as interesting of a film as I had hoped that it would be, a shame since the performances were good for me.

A lot of people have said there's a lot to say about the film, but I actually feel quite opposite although I've never been one to have extremely in depth reviews. So sorry for the short response.




And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
Not directed to me but I'll reply anyway. I kinda agree with the logic that specialty HoFs that have a short and strictly limited list of potential nominations should be exempt from that rule. To me, director and "studio" HoFs (like Pixar) seem to be about finding the best film fitting the chosen criteria so it would feel weird to exempt a film that's already proven itself.

I'd even go as far as suggesting that in such HoFs previous winners from general (or other less restricted) HoFs would automatically be included (i.e. by that logic Wall-E would have been nominated by default in Pixar HoF so there would have been one more film than participants). I actually thought of that while writing this reply but at least for now it feels like a good idea.

I like this idea about the previous winners automatically being included in the directors and specialty HoFs.
__________________
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!
I think the answer to what Raul, Ed and Pahak said, would be to call a 'Directors HoF' something other than HoF. Call it something like Director Series, or something catchy. Then change up the rules and procedures to keep things fresh. For example a Hitchcock Director Series, would have members nominating what they believe is the best of Hitch films. Then instead of a private voting ballot being sent to the host, each member after watching the movie would rate it with the popcorn system. At the end, the ratings would be added up for a preliminary ranking of the films....But here's where it gets interesting: to determine the final winner the members (and other MoFos) would debate the merits of the top 5 films (as rated by the members in their reviews)...then after discussion an open voting ballot would be posted by the members, then points tallied and a winner declared.

I'd be happy to host the 1st Director Series round, featuring Hitchcock. I even have an empty post on the HoF thread where the records of the Director Series winners could go.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of the ratings and voting being posted in the thread. It seems like that would make it easier to figure out which movie is likely to win the HoF, thereby lowering the possibility of a surprise winner. It also leaves it open to people trying to manipulate the voting to try to raise the chances of a lesser movie winning by ranking a movie that someone wants to win higher than it actually deserves.



And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!


A salesman/con man comes to a town and suckers the townspeople into purchasing needless uniforms and instruments in the 1962 film The Music Man. The movie is adapted from a Broadway play and you really feel the theatrical roots. The film is shot with an epic scoop in technicolor brilliance you can imagine seeing this in the theater and really enjoying it.


For me though the film is the lacking, perhaps it's the genre and time period but I enjoyed the humor more than the film. The film doesn't really have a strong narrative and you don't really grow to like or sympathize with the characters. And the film has issues with continuity the villagers we meet in the first scene are very different each time you see them. I also don't know what time period the story is supposed to take place in.


You've also got a very outdated message of a woman needing a man to be happy

The story takes place in 1912, (which also explains why the message about a woman needing a man to be happy makes sense in that time period).



i rewatched phantom thread like a week ago and never posted a review. i hadn't seen it since the theater, when i was regrettably unable to get to a 70mm screening, but i liked it about as much as i did then. it's quite a frustrating movie, because it is either an endlessly complex work of incredible psychological depth, or one of the most immaculate one-note films of all time. i can't decide which, but i think it's precisely that tension that makes it so compelling and enigmatic. it has a lot of thoughts about power dynamics in relationships and society's attitude towards "genius," but its all swallowed by the film's dry, unchanging rhythm. i think this is a fascinating artistic choice by pta that is crucial to the poetry and parallelism of it all, but i think the one thing that keeps me from loving it more than appreciating it is its refusal to change gears. i keep waiting to feel genuinely moved but it never comes, even if there are a lot of other great things going on here.
all of the performances are perfect and i appreciated krieps even more this time around.
__________________
Most Biblical movies were long If I Recall.
letterboxd
criticker